seeing only the red you want to see: suzanne moore’s bullheaded trans-misogyny

Note:An earlier version of the title of this article included the word “blind.” Someone pointed out to me that this usage was ableist, so I have changed it. Apologies for my mistake. –Savannah

Earlier this week, British journalist Suzanne Moore wrote a piece in the New Statesman titled “Seeing Red: the Power of Female Anger.” In the overarching theme of the article, Moore has a strong point to make: that women’s anger can be a powerful force for justice against male social dominance and patriarchy’s control over women’s lives and women’s bodies. It critiques soft-bellied mainstream liberal forces, for example, for attempting to cozy up to patriarchy regarding rape allegations against Julian Assange (see, for example, Naomi Wolf’s comments on the issue on Democracy Now).

That having been said, there are other feminist writers who have written similar critiques, and written them better. Moore hints at her position of privileged ignorance when she speaks up for Caitlin Moran’s How to Be a Woman without any mention of Caitlin’s unapologetic racism (given what is revealed below, I also question whether Moore has any business discussing women’s rights in the context of the Arab Spring– personally I would rather hear from an Arab woman who was actually, you know, there).

Things take a more blatant turn for the worse however when Moore makes the following comment:

“The cliché is that female anger is always turned inwards rather than outwards into despair. We are angry with ourselves for not being happier, not being loved properly and not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual.”

Note first of all that Moore does not refer to “a Brazilian trans woman” (or even “a Brazilian transsexual woman”), she refers to “a transsexual” in an odd way that hints of a suggested non-gendered individual. This might seem like a subtle point, however I can assure the reader that most trans women (who get this kind of crap all the time) will pick up on it immediately. When we see this kind of thing, we get that it hints at a deeper transphobic mentality. In the present case, this deeper mentality was confirmed rather swiftly after an ally questioned Moore about this on twitter; Moore responded with a pretty epic trans-misogynistic twitter rant (epic, although sadly familiar).

For example, when a cis woman ally questions her on transphobia, Moore responds:

“Transphobia is your term. I have issues with trans anything actually.”

which makes pretty clear she doesn’t take trans people or the oppression they face very seriously. However, when questioned further she makes the extent of her outright trans-misogyny quite clear when she says:

“I dont prioritise this fucking lopping bits of your body over all else that is happening to women Intersectional enough for you?”

She goes onto compound this by explicitly denying transphobia exists (she also reveals her racism by denying Islamophobia exists in the same tweet) and once trans women themselves get involved in the conversation, she really goes to town by tweeting:

“[1]) People can just fuck off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me. Good for them.

2)P Intersectionality my arse. Thats the polite word for the moral superiority of much of this discourse.

I dunno, maybe she’s drunk when she tweets this stuff? Honestly, I don’t even understand point (2) (is Moore saying she opposes morality?? Or hey, maybe she just believes in Moore-ality instead!!).

But in any case, her comments in point (1) (and another just blatantly making fun of us using idiotic cliché “born in the wrong body” narratives that most trans people reject) make pretty clear she doesn’t give a shit what trans women think and doesn’t care about our experiences, our lives, or our struggle against oppression (or the fact that much of it overlaps with cis women’s struggles in the first place).

Now with all this in mind, I want to propose my thoughts on why Moore referred to Brazilian trans women’s bodies in the first place: I think she wanted to use a certain woman’s body type as a kind of dartboard for a woman that she deems as ridiculous or dismissible. She knew she couldn’t get away with pointing to the body of “a Victoria’s Secret model” or “a Hollywood Starlet” because she would immediately get called out for her misogyny. So she went the route of conjuring up a Brazilian trans woman’s body in part cause she thought that no actual Brazilian trans woman would read the article and complain. Of course, plenty of trans women in Britain and elsewhere (women who speak English as a first language rather than Portuguese) picked up on it and called her out on it immediately.

Indeed, she attempted to defend herself on this point in twitter, saying “you will notice the huge numbers of Brazilian trans[s]exuals complaining”. She also states “I deliberately used the word Brazilian trans[s]exual as ideal shape small hips and big T and A. So ban me.”

In other words, Moore is deliberately picking on women of a certain body type, using Brazilian trans women as a stand-in for a wider class of women who she apparently views as ridiculous caricatures.

What’s more, trans women in Brazil happen to be incredibly vulnerable to violence overwhelmingly committed by men. So, you know, maybe they aren’t the best targets for Suzanne Moore’s “feminist” throw-away joke?

However, we find out there is a history to Moore’s transphobia; in fact, she herself recently tweeted a link to this unbelievable Independent article from April 1997, aptly titled “Gender Blender” discussing the case of a trans man who was refused to register himself as the father of his children (conceived through artificial insemination). The article goes on to refer to “hermaphrodite” worms and buys into the familiar, long discredited trope that trans people serve to prop up the traditional gender binary. The highlight however of course would be the following passage (emphasis added, comments in brackets […] are mine):

“The transsexual is continually having to insist that he or she is the real thing but was previously merely trapped in the wrong body. This is the dominant discourse of gender dysphoria [imposed on trans people by cis people]. In order to get a sex change in the first place, one has to perform as the chosen gender at the same time as insisting that ever since childhood one has known that something is deeply wrong [because cis people have long insisted that it be so]. Once the body is altered, the transsexual’s true identity can emerge in harmony with his or her brand-new freshly mutilated body.“

Well, that is serious pathologization of trans people’s bodies right there.

Now today, Moore has printed a new column in the Guardian, making a pretend attempt to alleviate the situation but not actually seriously addressing any of the criticisms that have been made of her comments and not at all acknowledging the “mutilation”-type comments that are the absolute worst part of the things she said.

She did however acknowledge her jealousy of Brazilian model Gisele Bündchen (maybe she doesn’t get that Bündchen is cis? I dunno…) and she stated her reasons that she doesn’t like the word transphobia:

“I don’t think it adds to our understanding of the complex webs of hatred it invokes, but instead closes down discussion.”

Right Suzanne, the word “transphobia” closes down your discussion of our supposedly “mutilated” genitalia. Damn that sucks cause I felt like we were really getting somewhere with that conversation!

She later states:

“…to be told that I hate transgender people feels a little … irrelevant. Other people’s genital arrangements are less interesting to me than the breakdown of the social contract.”

Funny Suzanne, you claim not to be interested in other people’s genitals shortly after yelling about those exact genitals on twitter non-stop for hours!

As a final point, let’s consider her statement on intersectionality:

“Intersectionality is good in theory, though in practice, it means that no one can speak for anyone else. It is the dead-end where much queer politics, feminist politics and identity politics ends up. In its own rectum. It refuses to engage with many other political discourses and becomes the old hierarchy of oppression.”

Suzanne, you completely misunderstand what intersectionality even means when you make this statement. Intersectionality does not mean that no one can speak for anyone else (notice that I have cited cis allies in this piece? You know people who don’t refer to mutilated genitals, etc., etc.?). Intersectionality means not turning on other women. Intersectionality means holding ourselves accountable to others and being open to critique when speaking about the oppression of others.

That’s what it means. So for example, when a trans woman tells you that the comment you made about Brazilian trans women in your article was transphobic, intersectionality simply demands that you listen and take those concerns seriously… as opposed to denying a trans woman’s narrative, denying transphobia exists, and making fun of her by talking about her “mutilated” genitalia that you claim you have no fucking interest in talking about in the first place!

I came through to this article from Twitter, and while I disagree with most of its points I think it’s cogent and well written. But I would like to challenge one point. I don’t think Moore meant to use the term Brazilian transsexual” to mean a someone or someone’s body that she found “ridiculous or dismissible”. I believe quite strongly that in the context of that particular article she meant it to stand for “unattainable”. Her arguments can be pretty unstructured so I don’t think she responded adequately to criticism, and indeed should have been criticised for that lack of structure as much as any potentially offensive comments. But overall a better alternative for her point would have been “Barbie doll” rather than “Hollywood Starlet”. Presumably it’s still ok to question anyone’s desire to emulate Barbie? Or is someone now standing up for Barbie’s rights?

I can understand your perspective that perhaps she meant “unattainable” when she mentioned Brazilian trans women. However, two points I would make in response: (1) even if that it is what she meant (and I doubt it) it is still offensive because it is both cissexist in the wording and racist in the implication that all trans women from Brazil have the same body type (there are no shortage of images of Brazilian trans women on the internet that might serve to disprove that latter point). And when she was challenged on the former point, she obviously revealed very real and deep trans-misogyny on Twitter. So I have no doubt about her transphobia whatsoever. (2) I doubt that it is what she meant in the original article, because her Twitter comments show that she has such extremely negative views of trans women and trans women’s bodies. I feel strongly that she used the phrase “Brazilian transsexuals” to represent something that seems to her utterly unreal, alien, and bizarre. And when she talks about body parts the way she did, I feel very alienated myself as a trans woman.

If she had made her comment read “that of a Barbie doll” rather than “that of a Brazilian transsexual” we would not be having this conversation right now. I think that would have been fine and it would have gotten the (supposed) point about unattainability across well.

Uh, yeah, I’m pretty certain she left twitter in good part because she was embarrassed of herself for publicly attacking people based on their genital configuration. No matter how much you might hate trans women, you gotta admit that is pretty crude.

The note at the top of this piece is illuminating. It is not for me to speak on blind people’s behalf, but I suspect it is generally accepted that the word “blind” can be used metaphorically as well as literally. The outrage that you express towards Suzanne Moore begins with her own metaphorical language, though it quickly broadens into a far wider assault on her intellect, morality, beliefs, abilities.
It’s your right to take issue with Moore, and to criticise her position. But I wonder where this increasingly vitriolic obsession with language is getting us? Would you, for example, accept that you make a “throwaway” reference to the possibility of Suzanne Moore being drunk when she expresses her opinion, and that it might seem to trivialise the difficulties of people with an alcohol problem? Of course, the point is that nobody sensible would suggest anything like that. Clearly, the problem you have with Moore is far bigger. So don’t hang it on a phrase, even one that might well have offended people.
A lot of this stuff – from Caitlin Moran to Suzanne Moore – seems to revolve around how people react when they “offend” others. It’s never right: they haven’t apologised quickly enough, or in the right way, or understood the heinous nature of their crimes. It is as though those who’ve been offended have simply asked them to think about their feelings and the “perpetrator” has in response slapped them in the face. When you look, though, it’s rarely like that; the tone is more usually accusatory, judgmental, splenetic. So I’m not sure the option to simply “listen and take those concerns seriously” is really open any more. In other words, I think there’s a rather more subtle power struggle going on here.

It says a lot that you want to jump on me for my rather harmless joke I made that maybe Suzanne Moore was drunk when she wrote a couple of her tweets, but yet you still don’t acknowledge anywhere in here that she basically called myself and other trans women mutilated freaks.

Then you talk about how I am supposedly referring to the “heinous nature of [Moore’s] crimes”… where did you get that? Where did I accuse her of being a criminal? She said some idiotic, ignorant shit on twitter that happens to be part of the stigma that fuels the discrimination and violence that women like myself have to deal with our whole lives. So yeah, I’m calling her out for saying that crap.

I mean, dear lord, I’m not saying she should go to jail or get fired from her job… but is it that fucking hard for her to just think about it for a bit and apologize for saying extremely pathologizing shit about our bodies??

More than anything, I find that it’s ironic how utterly offended you seem when you make this comment. How dare I step into your world and question this woman’s beliefs and the language she uses to speak about me… what arrogance!

[…] Moore’s response on twitter was shameful: among other things, she declared that transphobia and Islamophobia simply did not exist, stated that she doesn’t “prioritise this fucking lopping bits of your body over all else that is happening to women” and that “People can just fuck off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me”. She then followed this twitter rant with a Guardian comment piece. Stavvers has an excellent response, as does leftytgirl. […]

But I’m not offended at all. I disagree with a lot of what you write, but that’s entirely different. But I am sorry if I wasn’t clear: the phrase “heinous nature of their crimes” was meant to refer far more generally to the way I think these debates are currently unfolding; in fact, the point is that I don’t think they’re debates at all. It wasn’t meant to describe you personally.
Re the harmless joke – yes, of course it was! That was my point. But if you quite understandably feel you can decide when and whether you meant to give offence, don’t you think others should have that right?
But I understand of course that you feel more widely angry with Moore’s comments about trans women. I get that. I’m saying I think there’s a better way to have discussions. And it can’t be any coincidence that so many of these storms start on Twitter, which is like a petri dish of aggression and power-play and, frankly, display. That’s not to degrade what’s being argued about, or people’s rights, or their feelings.

Oh good grief. Alex has this absolutely right; the lack of self-awareness in this piece is staggering. Moore uses a word you don’t like—do you a) ask her politely not to do so, or b) go on a rampage of “Transphobic! Trans-misogynistic! Intersectionality!”, then throw around talk of being drunk as a “harmless joke” while not even realising—even when it’s pointed out—that this is no different from the very thing you’re complaining about.

To he honest, I was almost convinced this was a parody piece by the frankly ridiculous reference to Caitlin Moran’s “unapologetic racism”. Go read the four tweets in question, and perhaps you’ll see the real lesson from them: not that Moran is “unapologetically racist”, but that when a complete stranger decides that it’s not enough to insinuate as such—on the basis that she enjoyed a TV programme (by which I mean television, lest there be any confusion)—but just had to do so via an @mention so that she’d be sure to see it, she might feel disinclined to engage in earnest discussion with that stranger.

But not to worry; I’m a white cis male heterosxual, and so far too privileged to have an opinion.

Yeah, you didn’t read the twitter timeline linked in the article. A cis woman ally did approach SM politely about the issue. Moore responding by saying she didn’t care about transphobia at all and she started tweeting about trans people “lopping off” their body parts. It was with those comments from her that civility in the conversation broke down.

In the future, please read the twitter timeline before commenting. Thanks.

In fact I did read the Twitter timeline. I read it and specifically disagree with your use of the word “polite”. Accusations of transphobia right off the bat on the basis of one word are not “polite”. “Weird”, “nasty taste”, “implicit shaming” because of one word is not polite. Let me help you:

“I read and enjoyed your article, but was disappointed by your use of “transsexual”; you might not realise it, but some find that term offensive.”

You know: polite.

In the future please ask whether or not I read the timeline before dismissing my comments out of hand.

Alcoholics are not killed or beaten simply for existing. People treat alcoholism with some semblance of respect, and it is not pathologized the same way transsexuality is. So they’re not the same thing.

I’m just stunned that someone would decide to incorporate transphobia and misogyny into a written work, and then repeatedly defend their hatred as some kind of a feminist stance. I’m tired of always being expected to respond politely to people who spew such blatant hate. Thanks for calling it as it is, Leftytgirl.

I’m just stunned that someone would decide to read transphobia and misogyny into a written work where none exists, and then act surprised when the author reacts angrily. I’m tired of the lunatic* fringe undermining the efforts of their allies, who are actually making a positive difference in the world, and ensuring that tomorrow’s allies are too arse-clenchingly terrified to join the cause, for fear of being labelled as X-, Y- or Z-phobic simply because they used a single word in a manner that some people don’t much like.

Funny how the original piece is a focus on the power of anger in demanding justice, yet as soon as someone demonstrates anger that you happen to disagree with, that whole argument gets tossed out the window! And then you call me “impolite” while also calling everyone who has a different opinion than you “lunatic[s].”

I happen to think that you have to *earn* the right to be called my ally. Since you view me as a fanatical lunatic because I call out someone for using oppressive language against myself and other trans women, I recognize that you are in fact not my ally, and I would politely ask that you refrain from referring to yourself as such in the future. Thanks.

This is a wonderful piece and I’m sorry that you’re being subjected to quite a lot of condescending comments regarding tone and politeness. Moore’s piece was on the benefits of women getting angry in political discourse, and yet when people got angry at her vile comments, they’re in the wrong because they weren’t being polite enough? It’s also disappointing to see claims that people aren’t focusing on the “real issues” by discussing stuff like transphobic attitudes and word choice. Watching some prominent figures on the left sneer at intersectionality was particularly illuminating.

Good grief, where to even start. If someone was wanting to produce evidence of the ludicrous cul de sac that identity politics has become, and the damage it causes they’d probably want to cite this. ‘Ableist’ ffs, I thought that word only existed as a pisst ake of ‘political correctness’, I didn’t realise people actually used it.
Just as with ‘Islamaphobia’ to some degree it can describe something really, but in the vast majority of cases it’s simply and attempt to silence people, and shut down debate. Your obsession with language outside of context or intent (which is the only way you could take offence at what Moore said) is quite totalitarian.
The only thing Moore has a history of (aside for spending her life as a journalist championing causes of the less powerful & marginalised) is of being very blunt & sweary. You and other like you have attacked her and bullied her off twitter, for what in the context of the piece was a throw away line, clearly intended to highlight the way in which women’s bodies are idealised.

If Moore has left twitter it’s not because she’s embarrassed, it’s because she’s sick of being attacked and bullied by people like you. You’ve all set out to attack & silence her, not for what she said (which if you’d bother to read with an open mind you’d have seen was clearly on your side, any reasonable person could see Moore’s intention was quite the opposite of ‘hatred’), but because you think it’s your right to police language.

Normally when those on right talk of those on the left wanting to shut down debate, by making certain words and thoughts out of bounds, I’m usually the first call bollocks, but sadly I think they might have point.

I hope you’re proud, as you’ve managed to remove a powerful voice form twitter for the very causes you claim to be pursuing.

“[…] as soon as someone demonstrates anger that you happen to disagree with, that whole argument gets tossed out the window!”

Incorrect. I frequently hear people express opinions that I disagree with, and throw nothing out of any window. My disgust for your stance comes not from the fact that I disagree with you—indeed I wholly agree that transphobia is a desperately important issue that needs to be addressed—it comes from the way you attempt to do so in the form of hypocritical, nonsensical drivel that has set feminism and gender politics in general back by a distance. If you were to show the same anger towards, say, any of the many people who actually are transphobic, then I’d be behind you all the way!

Yes, I call you impolite, but no, that does not imply that I call “everyone who has a different opinion” than me “lunatic”—I reserve that epithet for those who so ably demonstrate themselves to be so. Again, you are extrapolating from my description of you and a select few others what I think of everyone else, and again it is a non sequitur.

Drearily predictably you attempt to turn my own words against me, but you have failed to recognise the asymmetry of the situation: your lot cast the first stone. And let me head you off before you try to argue that Ms Moore’s use of the word “transsexual” came first—while that is undoubtedly true, it was fairly obvious that there was no ill-intent in her (admittedly unfortunate) use of the word. On the other hand, accusing someone of transphobia straight off the bat because of a grammatical slip-up necessarily implies a malice that, in the context of the piece, was clearly absent. You’re so focused on the words people use that you fail to see it is the message that matters. And as such, I’m afraid you forfeited your right to my politeness entirely through your own deplorable behaviour.

You don’t want me as your ally? Fine—call me what you will; I’ll go back to the people who are actually advancing your cause, despite your best efforts to prevent them from doing so.

Oh, and why don’t all of you who so self righteously claim to the right to tell people how to think, wish to control language, and how to address the the issue of identity have a read of this http://stelladuffy.wordpress.com/

Have a read of it with a bit of humility, especially the comments from LGBT contributors. It would do you good to realise there’s scores of decent, passionate people who care about equality, who you’re alienating with a borderline fascistic obsession with the use of language.

I’d like to think one day you and others like you might grasp the damage you’re doing to your own and other progressive causes, sadly I suspect that’s unlikely, especially as far too many people in far too many academic circles have a vested interested in maintain this reductive nonsense.

Yeah, I read the article you linked and it’s a total cop-out. I mean, she’s basically saying that because of this recent ordeal, she has concluded that trans activists are some kind of special variety of activists that are so extreme or irrational that they cannot be dealt with. Hence she suggests that she may no longer write about trans issues.

If you write about trans lives or trans bodies and someone approaches you to say, “Hi, I liked your piece but this part was transphobic” and you almost immediately jump to “I don’t accept transphobia exists… I don’t care about these people cutting off their dicks,” then I have to say you have a very low threshold for criticism.

I mean, we’re talking about someone who has decades of journalism experience and can’t handle hearing “this thing you wrote was transphobic” without verbally attacking people’s bodies? If that’s the case then your comments just suggest Moore is an incredibly thin-skinned individual.

And you accuse me of not reading the timeline? Jo posted four tweets, accusing her of transphobia, being “weird”, leaving a “v nasty taste” and “implicitly shaming” trans women. Four tweets of personal insults, over one word used with no apparent malice.

So Moore “almost immediately” jumps to “I don’t accept transphobia exists”? Well, not quite. Not before Jo issues her “*demands*” and accuses Moore of having “delib[erately] misunderstood”—i.e., calling her a liar. So then does she say that transphobia doesn’t exist? Well not quite. By now it’s clear from the storify you yourself linked to that others have caught the alluring scent of moral outrage and jumped aboard. Several tweets go back and forth in bad temper. So now does she claim that transphobia doesn’t exist? Well not quite. She says that she “[doesn’t] even accept the word transphobia” (emphasis mine). Not the concept, the word. Like I said above, you’re so focused on words you miss the message; it shows no more comprehension than a spell-checker.

In the future, please read the twitter timeline before commenting. Thanks.

Yeah, once again, that is incredibly thin-skinned. I mean, if someone accused me of saying something racist, even if I thought they were wrong and they were being aggressive about it, I wouldn’t turn around and shout, “I don’t accept that word racism” and start blabbering about the color of their skin. (For one thing I wouldn’t do that because it would be a racist response…. even if their initial accusation was false.)

Again, this clever, “thick-skinned” journalist with decades of experience can’t do any better than this? Just sad, really.

And btw- in case you haven’t seen, Moore’s friend Julie Burchill in the Guardian today made it pretty clear what she (and likely much of her circle, including Moore) think about trans women behind-the-scenes. And it’s just pure hate. It doesn’t even pretend otherwise.

Ah, it’s all about thickness of skin, is it? Tell me, how thick-skinned do you have to be to cry “transphobia” over a single word being used without malice in a piece otherwise promoting a cause you claim to believe in? Or to cry “racism” because someone enjoyed a TV programme?

And the initial critique wasn’t that SM was transphobic, it was simply that the line in the article was transphobic. Again, y’all are the ones who took that and twisted that critique (of an article) into something so personal and came out so spiteful about it.

Sorry that when someone questions a point in the content of one of these articles that it hurts you so badly on such a personal level. But I can’t stop critiquing things I read just because you are so easily hurt by criticism of writing.

You’re talking about twisting words? Oh now, that is precious. It was you and yours twisting words that got this whole mess started.

No, I’m not personally “hurt”: I’m merely fed up of people hindering the very progress we both apparently support, by arguing syntax over semantics; words over meaning. However, it’s understandable that you’d be confused as to my position; you really don’t seem to have a particularly strong grasp of language.

Moore’s tweets made me feel ill. On the plus side, I’ve learned a lot about the trans community and the issues people face.
Moore is doing to trans people is exactly what she (says she) most hates about how male society treats women. Telling people how they should look, speak and behave, right down to the violent images. This is extraordinary. How could she get it so wrong?
The comment about cutting off dicks to be better feminists may be a clue.
Moore (and Moran, Bindel et al) make a living from being the go-to feminists for the media. We absorb their pieces or watch them being not very controversial on Newsnight, and nod our heads wisely in agreement, and they cash the cheques. She said ‘vagina!’ Wow! Kerching.
Its feminism-lite and everyone can agree that it’s a Good Thing.
Challenge this comfortable consensus, and you challenge an entire culture of back-slapping mainstream smugness. You’ll be drenched in vitriol, and the self-styled ‘journalist’ will get the unswerving support of others who shake the same money-tree.
Where I disagree with the article is over Assange. Moore’s comments on that issue, calling him a ‘massive turd’ with no attempt to construct a proper argument, were what made me unfollow her some months ago, when she was supported by exactly the same cast of professional ‘feminists’. After years of admiring her work, I sat up and thought, this person is following an agenda, and it’s not the one I thought it was.
If you’ve just started shouting, that’s different, he’s a fucking rapist, well sorry, he isn’t, and you’ve been manipulated. Your buttons were pressed, and Moore was one of those doing the pressing.
Governments and the MSM shared a monopoly of information that is now under threat. A lot of very expensive coats are on a wobbly peg.
Cui bono: follow the money.

Oh by the way, I simply don’t believe that someone who can subject their work to the comments of Guardian and Mail Online readers is going to be bullied off Twitter, even if the tweets she got really were as nasty as she claimed. Expect the ‘How I Was Bullied Off Twitter Article’ and triumphant return.
Meanwhile of course, no-one can read what Moore actually said unless they find the storified pieces. This seems to be having the intended effect as a lot of people are tweeting things like ‘I can’t see the problem with the article’.
It’s a trick she may have learned from fellow Guardian ‘journalist’ Emma Kennedy, who hasn’t flounced off yet (she wouldn’t get her followers back so quickly) but does regularly cleanse her timeline of any contact with her inferiors.

Blimey, what a nasty cynical attitude. For starters there’s obviously a complete difference between btl comments which you can ignore and abuse on Twitter which you can’t. It’s not the first time she’s considerIng off Twitter as I think she simply can’t be arsed with the harassment from people totalitarian attitude to what you can and think.

Also, Moore never said the things you’ve attributed to her, you’re choosing to read it in that way to almost dleiberately find offence, which is of course your prerogative, but what shouldn’t be is attempt to silence people. Here’s a though, you & others like you don’t get to decide what feminism is.

It’s also nice to that you’re psychic and KNOW that Assange isn’t a rapist, it’s nice also that your feminism doesn’t to allow due process to women who’ve made the allegations.

It is striking how the British newspaper columnist, normally that most robust of beasts, metamorphoses into a delicate crystalline trinket the moment the merest intellectual pressure is applied to their position. Oh, have a care oppressed member of a beleaguered minority, lest thy regulation-issue feminist boots should crush the diaphanous wings of this rare and gentle creature.

Meanwhile, back here on Earth, I’m left wondering quite how an untruth (the victims are bullies) should matter more than the reality (the victims are first hurt and then told how they should feel about it). In point of fact this is not particularly unusual. The moment a valued member of the Twitter media nexus is challenged, they immediately experience a dose of the fantods and the same old game of obfuscation plays out: abuse is hurled in return, hurt feelings are claimed and then finally comes the inevitable flounce. By now the windows are so misted only those who have followed the story from the beginning understand what has happened and the real victims are left behind to put out an endless series of fires started by their cadre of outraged acolytes.

The victims? Which victims? Moore was the first person in this sorry tale to be personally attacked and insulted for no good reason. And at no point did she act in any way resembling a “delicate crystalline trinket”.

While acknowledging that insults and abuse don’t achieve anything, and a lot that has been said on both sides would have been better left unsaid (see, for example, Julie Birchill’s vitriolic mouth-off this morning), there is only “no good reason” for Suzanne Moore to have been challenged initially if you think that trans people are fair game for cheap jibes. Do you think the same about racist or homophobic language for instance? If yes, well, at least you’re consistent. If not, then please explain why this is any different.

Ah, but there’s the rub. Do you actually mean “racist” and “homophobic”, or do you mean pertaining to race/sexuality? We often hear it said that gay men tend to have good dress-sense; that “white men can’t jump”, or dance (with the implication that black men obviously can). Is this racism/homophobia? Leftygirl herself was chastised for using “blind” as a metaphor—should I be suing my local council for erecting a road-sign warning of a “blind summit”? I just passed it on the way home from the supermarket while the radio was playing Bachman Turner Overdrive; prejudicial to people with stammers?

And as Alex points out above, Leftygirl—rightly—defends her comment about Moore being drunk when tweeting as a “harmless joke”. I agree, but by what objective standard do you or she get to decide what is a “harmless joke” and what is a “cheap jibe”? Being offended by someone calling you transphobic is apparently thin-skinned, but finding offence in someone using trans women as a motif is perfectly justifiable? Or is Leftygirl literophobic?

We need to stop finding offence in words—in semi-random collections of letters/syllables—and instead focus on meaning. Otherwise we are no better than spell-checkers.

Could you please explain why you cannot use the word ” Blind” when the term is in the dictionary to describe someone who cannot see and used as a metaphor of the same ? Your intent is not malicious so should the word “blind” be removed from the dictionary because it is unPC. Very soon we will run out of words to use metaphorically or otherwise.

If you think I’m being overly-cautious then fine, that is your opinion. Maybe you’re right, I’m still thinking it over. But I find it odd how easily offended people seem to get over me having changed the title at someone’s suggestion. Do you think it is a significantly worse title?

This is ridiculous. All of it. What is going on? Are we turning into the word police? I’m horrified but I’m sure our real enemies are laughing all their way to the power-dome. Know your enemies, pick your battles. It will be a long war and as they say ‘united we stand, divided we will fall’.

I am a brazillian trans woman and I think this is terrible. Maybe she was trying to make reference to Léa T., the brazillian supermodel who is trans. But Léa is one of thousands of girls with skinny bodies. The industry of modelling is not full of transsexuals, why pick up one of the only names? Maybe because it would not have the impact to say skinny anorexic models and she wanted to say something “new” to seem important. Her use of the term is a lack of good research and bad journalism, as a brazilian trans woman…I feel sorry for her and I have enough body issues to see my body being fasely glorify when my life is actually very hard. Brazil is the number one country in transgender muderdering in the world. BUT that does not count for that woman….

Hi Sophia, thank you very much for your comment and for reading my article. I agree with everything you said. Let’s hope that everyone can work to put together a woman’s movement that calls out violence against all women, and does so without pointing fingers at certain women’s bodies… after all, that’s already part of how women are oppressed.

“Transphobia” term was started by Jo. This is Jo’s personal opinion. The word “transsexual” is offensive or not – like Suzanne said its your prerogative. I’m a gay, I may or may not offended when Jo says “calling someone “a transsexual” is like calling someone “a gay” – really creepy..”. This is a personal feeling, if I don’t like people (like how Jo is saying) mentioning me as “gay”, Jo now will be the one getting critics for her offending words like what Suzanne gets now. If I don’t care about the “gay” word, this is just a non-offensive tweet. Suzanne is obviously angry with Jo’s misunderstanding on her article and “transphobia” tagging on Suzanne herself. The whole article is not criticizing or even humiliating “Brazilian transsexual” (in my opinion). So, its your own opinion to see the word is offensive or not. Let me put it this way, if someone writes “we are angry with ourselves for not being happier, not being loved properly and not having the ideal body shape – that of a Asian gay”, I will see it as a compliment. Is the writer being sarcastic, disregards any of homosexuals’ struggles or being “homophobia” as called by other reader? In my opinion, NOPE, this writer is saying “Asian gay” has the ideal body shape, that’s it. However, if I do feel very offended by the word “Asian gay”, I will tag this writer as homophobia, he/she is the one causing the public to further humiliates and disrespects “Asian gay” and he/she is absolutely insulting “Asian gay” in anyway. I do wonder how many people actually do read her “Seeing red” article & her tweets and replies to Jo before making rational comment on this issue? Please, read Suzanne’s article, tweets & replies with a cool head. Thanks.

[…] (Lefty T-Girl has also written two other pieces on this: ‘free speech vs. actual content: a challenge to julie burchill‘ and ‘seeing only the red you want to see: suzanne moore’s bullheaded trans-misogyny‘.) […]

Excellent article, Leftytgirl! I perceive that all persons who criticize your writing are cisgender men! Why they are siding with that feminist woman? Sympathy for her transphobic pieces, just that! I am a tgirl too. When it comes to trans rights, arrogant machista men maliciouly prefer to ally with feminists (transphobic cis women) than with us. Sad. By the way, I am a transgender person from Brazil. Congratulations for you blog.

Thank you very much for your comment here and I am glad you enjoyed my writing (honestly I’m honored that you would read it!)

That having been said, I want to clarify that not all feminists harbor these attitudes towards trans women. It’s sad to see it happening, but I think these tend to women who follow a variety of feminism that was popular mostly back in the 70’s.

To be clear, I myself am a feminist. I write specifically on trans feminism, which is an approach to feminism that specifically includes trans women’s voices and doesn’t shame us because of our bodies (or any woman’s bodies).

Many cis women feminists in the U.S., Canada and some other parts of the world are very supportive of trans women and our issues. Some of my closest friends and lovers are cis women who are feminists.

I want to say, I can understand where the frustration comes from because I have previously been attacked by some of these more reactionary elements within feminism myself. But I do think it’s important to discern the feminism that supports us, and the feminism that rejects us.

My impression is that the feminism that rejects trans women is starting to fade off, and in fact I think the events described in my piece above are one small sign of this.

Hello, Leftytgirl. In fact it’s important to say feminism today is by far, mostly an ally. I had referred exactly to that archaic feminism you mentioned. As a bisexual Tgirl I am a feminist too. Very well written your reply, I loved it and maybe Moore and Burchill have learned something from these events and may change their minds about us.